I can do it for free. Enjoy your gift title NYT.
“Hillary thinks Biden wants younger carbon age limits. Trump wants them higher. Here’s why it’s bad for targets.”
Up to 2030 it is actually very close. I don’t get why it would slow down after 2030. Does coal magically come back or what? Are we not going to assume that renewable energy, electric vehicles and sustainable industry will become much more economically viable?
I don't know if this is what is happening in this graph, but you get a lot of quick gains when you replace dirtier sources with natural gas, but once you have replaced all of that now you have all this new natural gas infrastructure that you can't replace because its just been built and still has to function for decades to pay back financially so it becomes much harder to reduce further.
I mean it’s super quick and easy and (relatively) inexpensive to set up a fracking well. I guess if you go with the unconventional fracking technique (that’s what it’s called) that is illegal in New York State (because Governor Cuomo wanted to look good but not actually implement good policy—I could go off if you give me a few beers and mention “conventional fracking”, basically it uses a ton more land to get fewer results but it’s illegal to do it the other way in New York)
…what was I talking about? Yeah, fracking isn’t that expensive to set up a well or two or two thousand.
> I mean it’s super quick and easy and (relatively) inexpensive to set up a fracking well.
Is this sarcasm? Fracking is notoriously expensive and slow, which is why there was a boom several years after a spike in oil prices and a huge loss of money in the US after oil prices fell again. There was too much lag in setting up the fracking and it was too expensive to compete once it was up.
Natural gas can have carbon capture technology attached and have very limited actual emissions. There are areas of the economy that are much harder to clean up though, like concrete, steel, and agriculture. Agriculture especially I don't see a good way to eliminate emissions from.
You serious? Bc their presidency will end in 2028. So it’s assuming similar futures after that because you have to. So this is just showing the effect that the 4 years will have.
They probably just removed the expected emissions reductions from the ira until 2030 and then just linearly decreased it instead of the much more likely drastic drop that would follow
Because after 2030 Biden won’t be president anymore and what happens afterwards is uncertain, this graph doesn’t show scenarios where either is president for life, just the 2024 election
Perhaps the exponential buildup of carbon requiring larger and larger proportional reductions in emissions? And global development in areas like China and India and Africa leading to more emissions? Not a scientist or economist, just speculation.
Biden could always declare himself dictator and govern via dictatorial decree indefinitely after 2028, kinda fucked up that Biden won't do that. Does he really care about the climate so little, to the point where he won't become God emperor and turn himself into a worm in order to fight climate change?
I mean if I was someone whose primary concern was climate change and looking at this graph standalone, I'd think "neither Biden nor Trump's policies would get us even close to the 2050 target."
> That’s because the 2050 targets are very difficult to hit and would require unimaginable investment. The problem of climate change is huge.
Hence the criticism that Biden is not doing enough.
He should use the full power of the executive in every imaginable way he can. He should also not put massive tariffs on foreign EVs and green tech (solar, wind, etc.).
Anyone still staying home or voting 3rd party after 9 years of Trump on the national political stage is unreachable anyway. They will get the theocratic fascist dictatorship they deserve.
would you say people voting trump after 9 years of trump on the national political stage is unreachable?
if not; why is that more reasonable than staying home
if so; isn't that just promoting the idea that no votes are reachable and the polls will be static forever
Yes.
There's a difference between people deliberately choosing to stay home out of some 'both sides' false equivalency, which is the type of people who would be following Hillary's tweets and roasting them for social media clout, vs staying home out of too busy with work/study/family/health/other and just hasn't thought about the election yet.
https://preview.redd.it/2o1uda4qr4wc1.jpeg?width=677&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f56dfc3d2fc659c59145e6201cbe3f983a79aa3a
I improved Democratic messaging and it only took me 2 minutes, can I get a job in DC where I get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars now? Pretty please? 🥺
The trajectory is, indeed, what makes it a net zero line. The line, as displayed, will intersect the x axis at a value below 2050. Data is cropped all the time, it doesn't change the data. A line that continues to zero but reaches that at a date after 2050 is not a "net zero by 2025" line.
>Donald Trumps line also intersects the x axis when its trajectory is extrapolated beyond what is shown. I still don't think "net zero" would be an honest label.
does it do so before 2050?
Edit: Actually, I just realized that I have no interest in speaking to you further, goodbye
There is a larger gap between Biden and his target than there is between Biden and Trump. This is fantastic messaging by Clinton, assuming her goal is to ensure that she isn't the only one to lose to Trump.
You're not quite reading the graph right.
Neither Biden or Trump will be President until 2050 (hopefully lol) so they're assuming for the sake of the graph that the policies they implement through 2028 will mostly stay in place, and more won't be added.
Better to look at 2030, and hope that whoever is President after Biden implements additional policies to continue the downward trend.
So hostile bro, take a chill pill.
Hillary is a policy wonk sharing a graph that was meant for policy wonks, the authors of which wanted to emphasize that even if Biden wins there will be a continued need for additional policy. I'm not gonna slam her for not editing the graph to be more politically effective.
This literally doesn't matter you're acting as if undecideds are following Hillary on Twitter
>Hillary didn't edit a graph into more effective propaganda, that makes her a traitor to the cause!
The dotted line is literally already enough. Getting upset at her over this is just tilting at windmills.
Not gonna keep responding, I've said what I want to say.
What about the text of the tweet makes you think this is meant for policy wonks. It mentions nothing about what these policies are or when and how they are being implemented, but it does focus on the election. Its clearly meant as a get out the vote/volunteers/fundraising tweet.
It's honestly fucking insane that /r/neoliberal of all places is complaining that a democrat didn't edit a third party's graph to make it more beneficial for one political party.
You guys are acting like Hillary's tweets are this mainstream thing, she's a failed candidate from eight years ago, she can tweet whatever she wants. Acting like Hillary tweeting a perfectly understandable graph is gonna lose Michigan smh what happened to this sub.
Btw I said the *graph* is for policy wonks, and that *Hillary* is a policy wonk. Both statements are objectively true, CarbonBrief is a UK based climate news site that specializes in "clear, data-driven articles and graphics to help improve the understanding of climate change, both in terms of the science and the policy response." It's not their job to cut off their graphs at 2030 so the Democrat looks better, and props to Hillary for not being the propagandist you want her to be.
> You guys are acting like Hillary's tweets are this mainstream thing, she's a failed candidate from eight years ago, she can tweet whatever she wants
And she opens herself to criticism when she does so.
> Btw I said the graph is for policy wonks, and that Hillary is a policy wonk
Her reach on Twitter goes beyond policy wonks, hence this tweet being a topic of discussion in other circles.
---
But ironically, I agree with her tweeting this. Biden is not doing enough on climate change. He's failing us and future generations.
Her intention was not to criticize Biden, but she did a good job it, and the criticism is warranted.
If you know what you’re talking about, sure.
The kind of person this is aimed at is gonna look at it and see neither comes close to the target and go full accelerationist.
Thankfully that’s an absolutely tiny demo, but wtf, Hill Dawg once again showing why she’d be a better governor than she is a candidate
The demo that will go accelerationist is tiny, but the demo that will go doomer nihilist and think we might as well not try and just live it up with our fossil fuels while we can is quite large. Probably the plurality stance on climate change in the US.
>There is a larger gap between Biden and his target than there is between Biden and Trump
Wait, it's not though. If you look at the graph to 2030 (by which time either one would be out of office) Biden is _far far_ closer to target than to Trump's policies.
Projections beyond 2030 are pretty arbitrary and useless because there'd be whole different administrations and different policies in place by then.
> If you look at the graph to 2030 (by which time either one would be out of office) Biden is far far closer to target than to Trump's policies.
Closer is not good enough.
The target emissions are not to keep the climate as it is. They are to limit us to 1.5C. Meeting targets is the minimum. Being closer than your opponent is still a massive failure.
> She lost to a one term Senator from Illinois, nearly lost to the only independent in the senate, then to Donald Trump.
Obama was literally a generational talent, [Bernie vs Hillary wasn't close at all and was basically over by Super Tuesday](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clintons-got-this/), and I wish people would stop underestimating Trump because normal politicians don't take over an entire political party. The guy has an unfortunate talent for politics in the modern media landscape, despised as he is by many.
I like how to just say she lost to Trump despite winning the popular vote and it being basically a fluke and then “nearly lost” to Bernie even though it wasn’t close.
I mean it was the 58th of 58 elections run under the “you’ve got to win the electoral college not the popular vote” how could she have known?! It had only happened in 5% of the elections, once in her lifetime, when her husband’s vice president had run.
She beat sanders by 4% in pledge delegates, that’s a really narrow margin in Senator from Vermont vs former First Lady, previous sec of state, second time presidential candidate. And the lasting effect on the Democratic platform was too make it look more like sanders preferences than Clinton’s.
From a wonk's standpoint it makes sense at least
The losing to DJT Jr is overemphasized though considering the pendulum was likely swinging back so it was moreso his to lose than hers to lose. And the fact he gained votes from 2016 to 2020 shows he wasn't the terrible candidate we saw him as.
For real, without any further context this graph perfectly plays into the "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" messaging that is causing young people to not want to vote. Biden is slightly better than trump but still far short of his own pledge jfc
By the end of his term it's nearly on target though? We likely could see more steps taken within his next term too to make it hit the target for his term.
Yeah sadly they can't read the text that explains the graph lol even the yellow line is only there because it's Biden's target. If people even used a quarter of a brain cell they would realize that what's happening on this graphic is good for the climate discussion. It shows where we need to be, but doesn't say we have reached the finish line. People need to realize we actively have to push for change.
So you want the graph to lie? Biden's policies don't magically get the US to net zero by 2050, there needs to be lots of additional policy on top of what he's done, that's just the truth. Maybe they could have just not shown that bit for the purposes of the tweet but frankly telling everyone that if they vote for Biden the climate will be fixed will just be dishonest when they do so and it isn't.
Late to this post but I'm baffled by how she could look at the graph and think it was good messaging. The average person knows very little about climate change. What does the "target" represent, and what happens if we go above it? Will there be a meaningful difference between going up 3 degrees instead of 4 degrees? These are questions that should be immediately presented if you are presenting a graph showing "we are going to be going way over the target but still less than than the competition".
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people read this like a diagram saying "Over 100 degrees and the reactor will explode" and having a Biden line at 160 degrees and trump line at 190 degrees.
Yes, we will need more climate action than one law and 4 years of executive orders.
It's still a lot of progress through 2030. After that, they need more investments.
Biden is basically meeting it for his term. Carbonbrief is taking the most pessimistic projections for his successors and assuming there will be no follow-up to his climate change bill.
No major country or government is on track in its current policies to achieve net zero by 2050, that's just the fact of the world. While you could probably have better messaging, lying to voters that the climate will be fixed if you vote for Biden seems pretty dishonest.
The notion the only reason Hillary lost was due to some Russian conspiracy and not her fundamental incompetence at being a politician, and I say this as someone who voted for her in the general, always struck me as absurd.
I’m a bit surprised by these comments.
Net zero by 2050 would require an incredible amount of investment. Currently, we have ~100 nuclear reactors providing ~20% of our electricity. This means we would need ~500 reactors to make us 100% clean electricity.
Then you need to move cars to electric. And get rid of natural gas heating and stoves and electrify those. DOE believes this would increase demand by 38%. So let’s make that 700 nuclear reactors worth.
And nuclear reactors are by far the most energy dense source we have. If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable).
This isn’t to say that we can’t do it. We built our reactor fleet over the course of 20-30 years and it’s still the largest source of clean energy we have. What I’m saying is— a little bit of subsidies here and there won’t cut it whatsoever. And Biden isn’t solely at fault.
The gap shown here between Trump and Biden is absolutely critical to minimize the damage.
> If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable).
Assuming it's just solar and using a conservative efficiency figure, about the size of Lake Michigan for the whole country's needs, so hardly unimaginable. In fact, far more land is being used for stuff like farming ethanol inputs. If you factor in Wind power and the fact that solar can pretty much be put on anything flat including roofs, the actual land use requirements are far less.
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us-solar/
Most people on this sub know that.
The point is that the majority of people who will see this don’t.
From the uninformed voters standpoint, this looks terrible.
I don’t think they’re following her. That said, if she’s pushing it out of socials, it’s been run by enough people that it’s official messaging being pushed out on official channels.
> And nuclear reactors are by far the most energy dense source we have. If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable).
It is in fact cheaper and easier than building 700 new reactors though.
Lots of space in the US. We can fit a lot of solar, wind, and batteries. Drive through West Texas. Solar farms would be an improvement.
Plus, we could also build a national grid (even connected to Mexico and Canada!), which would lower the amount of power generation and storage (when it's cloudy in LA, it's sunny in Florida).
> How are we going to switch from gas to electric for heating?
I've only ever had electric furnaces (not even heat pumps) and they are fine, even in sub freezing weather.
Is Hillary trying to support the Democrats or make Biden lose even more voters to Stein and West?
And what is the methodology of this graph? How can they even try to accurately predict US emissions 30 years in the future? Carbon capture, renewable energy and EV technology have improved massively over the past decade or so and what future ecological technology improvements there could be is incredibly speculative. And policy could change substantially with future administrations regardless of who wins in 2024.
The title is wrong. It is also the message for the voters, that are concerned about the climate change policies that they oppose. And it may easily be that they outnumber their opponents.
"You know all those climate measures that inconvenience you and make the US weak towards global rivals? Guess what, they also are ineffective at preventing climate change too!"
Ya, that is sounds like a solid message.
> "You know all those climate measures that inconvenience you and make the US weak towards global rivals? Guess what, they also are ineffective at preventing climate change too!"
If we had been/were currently smarter, we'd use climate measures to strengthen our economy and global status.
Look at China. They invested heavily and early into green tech and EVs, and now Chinese companies lead those global industries. We should've done the same 20 years ago, but better late than never.
It's crazy when Dems just straight up admit they are not that different from Trump, and nowhere near capable of achieving whatever "the target" is on any issue lol
YEAH BUT BIDEN IS STILL ABOVE THE TARGET, HE’S BASICALLY AS BAD AS TRUMP, ONLY SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS TO END THE KKKAPITALIST SYSTEM AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF #DEGROWTH
The said thing is this isn’t that far off from what you’d see online, just without the all caps (all caps tends to be more of a right wing thing, I believe).
NYT editors just went six to midnight
I can do it for free. Enjoy your gift title NYT. “Hillary thinks Biden wants younger carbon age limits. Trump wants them higher. Here’s why it’s bad for targets.”
There had to have been a better graph to use than this one
Up to 2030 it is actually very close. I don’t get why it would slow down after 2030. Does coal magically come back or what? Are we not going to assume that renewable energy, electric vehicles and sustainable industry will become much more economically viable?
I don't know if this is what is happening in this graph, but you get a lot of quick gains when you replace dirtier sources with natural gas, but once you have replaced all of that now you have all this new natural gas infrastructure that you can't replace because its just been built and still has to function for decades to pay back financially so it becomes much harder to reduce further.
I mean it’s super quick and easy and (relatively) inexpensive to set up a fracking well. I guess if you go with the unconventional fracking technique (that’s what it’s called) that is illegal in New York State (because Governor Cuomo wanted to look good but not actually implement good policy—I could go off if you give me a few beers and mention “conventional fracking”, basically it uses a ton more land to get fewer results but it’s illegal to do it the other way in New York) …what was I talking about? Yeah, fracking isn’t that expensive to set up a well or two or two thousand.
I am not talking about the wells, I am talking about the power plants and pipelines and terminals and buildings with natural gas heating systems.
> I mean it’s super quick and easy and (relatively) inexpensive to set up a fracking well. Is this sarcasm? Fracking is notoriously expensive and slow, which is why there was a boom several years after a spike in oil prices and a huge loss of money in the US after oil prices fell again. There was too much lag in setting up the fracking and it was too expensive to compete once it was up.
Natural gas can have carbon capture technology attached and have very limited actual emissions. There are areas of the economy that are much harder to clean up though, like concrete, steel, and agriculture. Agriculture especially I don't see a good way to eliminate emissions from.
[удалено]
Make people build high density housing with the trees and eat the bugs
That's not going to happen in a democracy.
My guess is various policies sunset in 2030, but I'm not sure.
You serious? Bc their presidency will end in 2028. So it’s assuming similar futures after that because you have to. So this is just showing the effect that the 4 years will have.
They probably just removed the expected emissions reductions from the ira until 2030 and then just linearly decreased it instead of the much more likely drastic drop that would follow
We’re trying to take it down to zero. The lower hanging fruit will be gone and the remaining emissions will be more stubborn and harder to stamp out.
Because after 2030 Biden won’t be president anymore and what happens afterwards is uncertain, this graph doesn’t show scenarios where either is president for life, just the 2024 election
Perhaps the exponential buildup of carbon requiring larger and larger proportional reductions in emissions? And global development in areas like China and India and Africa leading to more emissions? Not a scientist or economist, just speculation.
Yeah just cut it after 2030… it’s not like Biden can even go after that lol it’s the literal law.
Biden could always declare himself dictator and govern via dictatorial decree indefinitely after 2028, kinda fucked up that Biden won't do that. Does he really care about the climate so little, to the point where he won't become God emperor and turn himself into a worm in order to fight climate change?
Yeah, couldn’t they have just pulled that X axis in a bit
How so
I mean if I was someone whose primary concern was climate change and looking at this graph standalone, I'd think "neither Biden nor Trump's policies would get us even close to the 2050 target."
That’s because the 2050 targets are very difficult to hit and would require unimaginable investment. The problem of climate change is huge.
which is why it shouldn't be shown like that
> That’s because the 2050 targets are very difficult to hit and would require unimaginable investment. The problem of climate change is huge. Hence the criticism that Biden is not doing enough. He should use the full power of the executive in every imaginable way he can. He should also not put massive tariffs on foreign EVs and green tech (solar, wind, etc.).
Right, setting totally unrealistic targets is not productive and is a bad look.
Yeah I’m already seeing lefties rip into this tweet. This was a bad PR move.
Lefties would rip into anything put out by $hillary
isn't the whole point of this kind of stuff to appeal to 'lefties' who are considering staying home or voting green
Anyone still staying home or voting 3rd party after 9 years of Trump on the national political stage is unreachable anyway. They will get the theocratic fascist dictatorship they deserve.
No, *we* will get the theocratic fascist dictatorship. We need everyone we can get on board, swing voters and annoying leftists alike.
would you say people voting trump after 9 years of trump on the national political stage is unreachable? if not; why is that more reasonable than staying home if so; isn't that just promoting the idea that no votes are reachable and the polls will be static forever
Yes. There's a difference between people deliberately choosing to stay home out of some 'both sides' false equivalency, which is the type of people who would be following Hillary's tweets and roasting them for social media clout, vs staying home out of too busy with work/study/family/health/other and just hasn't thought about the election yet.
I mean sure but the second person isn't gonna see the tweet
https://preview.redd.it/2o1uda4qr4wc1.jpeg?width=677&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f56dfc3d2fc659c59145e6201cbe3f983a79aa3a I improved Democratic messaging and it only took me 2 minutes, can I get a job in DC where I get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars now? Pretty please? 🥺
This still looks bad. Just leave the third line off altogether.
[удалено]
All my bosses are lesbians and they freaking own
even a billion dollars couldn't fix this messaging..
[удалено]
The net zero/target line was at ≈3.2 billion in 2030 before I cropped the image, too
[удалено]
The line has the exact same trajectory as net zero line. One should expect most "net zero by 2050" lines to reach zero at 2050, not before
[удалено]
The trajectory is, indeed, what makes it a net zero line. The line, as displayed, will intersect the x axis at a value below 2050. Data is cropped all the time, it doesn't change the data. A line that continues to zero but reaches that at a date after 2050 is not a "net zero by 2025" line.
[удалено]
>Donald Trumps line also intersects the x axis when its trajectory is extrapolated beyond what is shown. I still don't think "net zero" would be an honest label. does it do so before 2050? Edit: Actually, I just realized that I have no interest in speaking to you further, goodbye
There is a larger gap between Biden and his target than there is between Biden and Trump. This is fantastic messaging by Clinton, assuming her goal is to ensure that she isn't the only one to lose to Trump.
Yeah I was just thinking that. It just honestly makes me depressed to look at, hardly encouraged.
You're not quite reading the graph right. Neither Biden or Trump will be President until 2050 (hopefully lol) so they're assuming for the sake of the graph that the policies they implement through 2028 will mostly stay in place, and more won't be added. Better to look at 2030, and hope that whoever is President after Biden implements additional policies to continue the downward trend.
> Neither Biden or Trump will be President until 2050 (hopefully lol) Wdym hopefully? You don't want a 108 year old President Biden??
Ready the sandtrouts
[удалено]
Sure but I'd have hoped neoliberal wouldn't need idiot proof graphs
[удалено]
So hostile bro, take a chill pill. Hillary is a policy wonk sharing a graph that was meant for policy wonks, the authors of which wanted to emphasize that even if Biden wins there will be a continued need for additional policy. I'm not gonna slam her for not editing the graph to be more politically effective. This literally doesn't matter you're acting as if undecideds are following Hillary on Twitter
[удалено]
>Hillary didn't edit a graph into more effective propaganda, that makes her a traitor to the cause! The dotted line is literally already enough. Getting upset at her over this is just tilting at windmills. Not gonna keep responding, I've said what I want to say.
What about the text of the tweet makes you think this is meant for policy wonks. It mentions nothing about what these policies are or when and how they are being implemented, but it does focus on the election. Its clearly meant as a get out the vote/volunteers/fundraising tweet.
It's honestly fucking insane that /r/neoliberal of all places is complaining that a democrat didn't edit a third party's graph to make it more beneficial for one political party. You guys are acting like Hillary's tweets are this mainstream thing, she's a failed candidate from eight years ago, she can tweet whatever she wants. Acting like Hillary tweeting a perfectly understandable graph is gonna lose Michigan smh what happened to this sub. Btw I said the *graph* is for policy wonks, and that *Hillary* is a policy wonk. Both statements are objectively true, CarbonBrief is a UK based climate news site that specializes in "clear, data-driven articles and graphics to help improve the understanding of climate change, both in terms of the science and the policy response." It's not their job to cut off their graphs at 2030 so the Democrat looks better, and props to Hillary for not being the propagandist you want her to be.
> You guys are acting like Hillary's tweets are this mainstream thing, she's a failed candidate from eight years ago, she can tweet whatever she wants And she opens herself to criticism when she does so. > Btw I said the graph is for policy wonks, and that Hillary is a policy wonk Her reach on Twitter goes beyond policy wonks, hence this tweet being a topic of discussion in other circles. --- But ironically, I agree with her tweeting this. Biden is not doing enough on climate change. He's failing us and future generations. Her intention was not to criticize Biden, but she did a good job it, and the criticism is warranted.
This is the type of chart that makes people want to firebomb a Walmart.
\*proceeds not to firebomb a Walmart\*
The reason we don't is because we've built a system that thinks firebombing a Walmart is wrong.
Bourgeois thinking is so ingrained in every aspect of our culture, it's terrible. /s
If you know what you’re talking about, sure. The kind of person this is aimed at is gonna look at it and see neither comes close to the target and go full accelerationist. Thankfully that’s an absolutely tiny demo, but wtf, Hill Dawg once again showing why she’d be a better governor than she is a candidate
The demo that will go accelerationist is tiny, but the demo that will go doomer nihilist and think we might as well not try and just live it up with our fossil fuels while we can is quite large. Probably the plurality stance on climate change in the US.
>There is a larger gap between Biden and his target than there is between Biden and Trump Wait, it's not though. If you look at the graph to 2030 (by which time either one would be out of office) Biden is _far far_ closer to target than to Trump's policies. Projections beyond 2030 are pretty arbitrary and useless because there'd be whole different administrations and different policies in place by then.
Then why include these projections in the graph? It's irrelevant to the message she wanted to convey.
> If you look at the graph to 2030 (by which time either one would be out of office) Biden is far far closer to target than to Trump's policies. Closer is not good enough. The target emissions are not to keep the climate as it is. They are to limit us to 1.5C. Meeting targets is the minimum. Being closer than your opponent is still a massive failure.
There isn't. The next guy will only be in office 4 years
Hill dawg that isn’t the positive message for Biden you think it is lmao
She (and/or) her team have always been horrendous at communications. I mean they spent a billion dollars losing to donald trump ffs
She lost to a one term Senator from Illinois, nearly lost to the only independent in the senate, then to Donald Trump.
To be fair, that one-term Senator from Illinois came in as a 12 seed when he clearly should have been at least a 5 or 6 seed.
> She lost to a one term Senator from Illinois, nearly lost to the only independent in the senate, then to Donald Trump. Obama was literally a generational talent, [Bernie vs Hillary wasn't close at all and was basically over by Super Tuesday](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clintons-got-this/), and I wish people would stop underestimating Trump because normal politicians don't take over an entire political party. The guy has an unfortunate talent for politics in the modern media landscape, despised as he is by many.
I like how to just say she lost to Trump despite winning the popular vote and it being basically a fluke and then “nearly lost” to Bernie even though it wasn’t close.
I mean it was the 58th of 58 elections run under the “you’ve got to win the electoral college not the popular vote” how could she have known?! It had only happened in 5% of the elections, once in her lifetime, when her husband’s vice president had run. She beat sanders by 4% in pledge delegates, that’s a really narrow margin in Senator from Vermont vs former First Lady, previous sec of state, second time presidential candidate. And the lasting effect on the Democratic platform was too make it look more like sanders preferences than Clinton’s.
From a wonk's standpoint it makes sense at least The losing to DJT Jr is overemphasized though considering the pendulum was likely swinging back so it was moreso his to lose than hers to lose. And the fact he gained votes from 2016 to 2020 shows he wasn't the terrible candidate we saw him as.
DJT Sr
When was 2016 ever "his to lose"? The betting markets, news networks, wonks, and every single person I spoke to seemed to think otherwise.
For real, without any further context this graph perfectly plays into the "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" messaging that is causing young people to not want to vote. Biden is slightly better than trump but still far short of his own pledge jfc
Were you hoping for "voting for Biden is the last thing you'll ever need to do to fix climate change"?
I was hoping for him to not be at least half the y-axis off from the target
By the end of his term it's nearly on target though? We likely could see more steps taken within his next term too to make it hit the target for his term.
Do you think most people seeing this can figure that out? Remember.. most people are stupid.
Yeah sadly they can't read the text that explains the graph lol even the yellow line is only there because it's Biden's target. If people even used a quarter of a brain cell they would realize that what's happening on this graphic is good for the climate discussion. It shows where we need to be, but doesn't say we have reached the finish line. People need to realize we actively have to push for change.
Good thing the term doesn't run until 2050. Again, don't expect voting for Biden to be the last thing you need to do between now and 2050.
So you want the graph to lie? Biden's policies don't magically get the US to net zero by 2050, there needs to be lots of additional policy on top of what he's done, that's just the truth. Maybe they could have just not shown that bit for the purposes of the tweet but frankly telling everyone that if they vote for Biden the climate will be fixed will just be dishonest when they do so and it isn't.
Late to this post but I'm baffled by how she could look at the graph and think it was good messaging. The average person knows very little about climate change. What does the "target" represent, and what happens if we go above it? Will there be a meaningful difference between going up 3 degrees instead of 4 degrees? These are questions that should be immediately presented if you are presenting a graph showing "we are going to be going way over the target but still less than than the competition". I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people read this like a diagram saying "Over 100 degrees and the reactor will explode" and having a Biden line at 160 degrees and trump line at 190 degrees.
Is Target running for the Lib Dems?
Would be one hell of a way to win the suburban women's vote.
Brian Cornell for Prez 2028
Damn we got department stores running for public office now. Crazy.
And apparently libertarians, judging by the color.
Hillary would have made us carbon neutral already.
She would've used funds to invest in time travel, go back in time and solve problems before they happened.
We’d be tripping over dodos
Yes, we will need more climate action than one law and 4 years of executive orders. It's still a lot of progress through 2030. After that, they need more investments.
Don’t want to miss the climate goals target? Vote for the guy whose totally missing the climate goals target!
Biden is basically meeting it for his term. Carbonbrief is taking the most pessimistic projections for his successors and assuming there will be no follow-up to his climate change bill.
No major country or government is on track in its current policies to achieve net zero by 2050, that's just the fact of the world. While you could probably have better messaging, lying to voters that the climate will be fixed if you vote for Biden seems pretty dishonest.
Hot take, but I think Biden should do more about climate change.
This would be the perfect message to use if you had no idea how to talk to the type of Gen Z “climate first” voter that is on the fence about Biden.
I hear they like mobile games involving beloved children’s cartoon series - maybe she should try connecting over those instead.
Teen Titans Go block traffic
This is the most neo lib post ever. You guys should make this your banner or something,
Oh my God the college leftists just increased in power by like 2%. Its not much but still more than this graph shows Biden doing for the climate.
I'm not voting for Target. I don't even live near one.
The notion the only reason Hillary lost was due to some Russian conspiracy and not her fundamental incompetence at being a politician, and I say this as someone who voted for her in the general, always struck me as absurd.
That was all to protect her ego
"Look at how ineffective they both are! Both sides!"
Leftists subs right now: "see theres no difference between biden and trump" "I'm voting for target" 🤓
I’m a bit surprised by these comments. Net zero by 2050 would require an incredible amount of investment. Currently, we have ~100 nuclear reactors providing ~20% of our electricity. This means we would need ~500 reactors to make us 100% clean electricity. Then you need to move cars to electric. And get rid of natural gas heating and stoves and electrify those. DOE believes this would increase demand by 38%. So let’s make that 700 nuclear reactors worth. And nuclear reactors are by far the most energy dense source we have. If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable). This isn’t to say that we can’t do it. We built our reactor fleet over the course of 20-30 years and it’s still the largest source of clean energy we have. What I’m saying is— a little bit of subsidies here and there won’t cut it whatsoever. And Biden isn’t solely at fault. The gap shown here between Trump and Biden is absolutely critical to minimize the damage.
> If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable). Assuming it's just solar and using a conservative efficiency figure, about the size of Lake Michigan for the whole country's needs, so hardly unimaginable. In fact, far more land is being used for stuff like farming ethanol inputs. If you factor in Wind power and the fact that solar can pretty much be put on anything flat including roofs, the actual land use requirements are far less. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us-solar/
You are preaching to the choir. Now explain that to the people this tweet is actually targeting.
Most people on this sub know that. The point is that the majority of people who will see this don’t. From the uninformed voters standpoint, this looks terrible.
[удалено]
I don’t think they’re following her. That said, if she’s pushing it out of socials, it’s been run by enough people that it’s official messaging being pushed out on official channels.
> And nuclear reactors are by far the most energy dense source we have. If you don’t want nuclear, just imagine how much solar panels and wind turbines and grid-level storage you’d have to build to match 700 reactors (it’s unimaginable). It is in fact cheaper and easier than building 700 new reactors though. Lots of space in the US. We can fit a lot of solar, wind, and batteries. Drive through West Texas. Solar farms would be an improvement. Plus, we could also build a national grid (even connected to Mexico and Canada!), which would lower the amount of power generation and storage (when it's cloudy in LA, it's sunny in Florida).
How are we going to switch from gas to electric for heating? Is electricity pricing going to drastically drop?
Heat pumps are improving quite a bit and are economically viable basically everywhere other than Alaska and some parts of the Western Plains.
> How are we going to switch from gas to electric for heating? I've only ever had electric furnaces (not even heat pumps) and they are fine, even in sub freezing weather.
I disagree that Hillary is bad at communications. This tweet communicates that she's terrible at communications very clearly.
If someone from Biden’s campaign isn’t currently telling the Clinton’s public rep to take away her phone then I think he’s screwed.
That’s really my only GOTV message to the Pro-Hamas kids: “fuck people, save the planet”
Bad message because this graph shows Biden isn't saving the planet either
He’s making it better
HILLARY SHUT THE FUCK UP FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
Is Hillary trying to support the Democrats or make Biden lose even more voters to Stein and West? And what is the methodology of this graph? How can they even try to accurately predict US emissions 30 years in the future? Carbon capture, renewable energy and EV technology have improved massively over the past decade or so and what future ecological technology improvements there could be is incredibly speculative. And policy could change substantially with future administrations regardless of who wins in 2024.
The title is wrong. It is also the message for the voters, that are concerned about the climate change policies that they oppose. And it may easily be that they outnumber their opponents.
"You know all those climate measures that inconvenience you and make the US weak towards global rivals? Guess what, they also are ineffective at preventing climate change too!" Ya, that is sounds like a solid message.
> "You know all those climate measures that inconvenience you and make the US weak towards global rivals? Guess what, they also are ineffective at preventing climate change too!" If we had been/were currently smarter, we'd use climate measures to strengthen our economy and global status. Look at China. They invested heavily and early into green tech and EVs, and now Chinese companies lead those global industries. We should've done the same 20 years ago, but better late than never.
This graph might convince me to vote for Target, who knew their shopping experience would lower emissions by so much! /s in case it wasn’t obvious
Wonder how much closer we’d be to the target without Biden’s protectionist BS
The message is clear, I'm voting for Target.
It's crazy when Dems just straight up admit they are not that different from Trump, and nowhere near capable of achieving whatever "the target" is on any issue lol
She openly mocked the green new deal. I wish she would make up her mind.
YEAH BUT BIDEN IS STILL ABOVE THE TARGET, HE’S BASICALLY AS BAD AS TRUMP, ONLY SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS TO END THE KKKAPITALIST SYSTEM AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF #DEGROWTH The said thing is this isn’t that far off from what you’d see online, just without the all caps (all caps tends to be more of a right wing thing, I believe).
Earth will survive climate change. Always has always will. As billions of years of evolution have proved, life always prevails
"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"
>Life always prevails me after dumping pop rocks in an anthill
You'll survive your car accident, but some of your passengers won't and you'll spend the rest of your life as a quadriplegic. Life always prevails
Life prevails. Biodiversity doesn’t.
Microorganisms will be FINE! Why are the libs so worried?